Bips v Bips, 2016 WL 4529957 (E.D. Va.,2016) [Germany] [Grave Risk of Harm not Established] [Petition Granted]

In Bips v Bips, 2016 WL 4529957 (E.D. Va.,2016) the district court granted the Petition of the mother, Caroline Thonet-Bips, for  the return of her four-year old child to Germany. N. was born on March 2, 2012 and was a citizen of Germany and the United States.  The mother was a citizen of Germany. The father was a citizen of the United States. The parties were married and lived together in Germany from July 12, 2010 until January 2015.  In January 2015, petitioner filed for divorce in Germany.  In September 2015, during the pendency of the divorce proceedings, E.H. began residing with petitioner at petitioner’s residence. Since the parties’ separation, there was a strained relationship between respondent and E.H., whom respondent has referred to in conversations with N. as “a guy that does bad things.”  In March 2016, respondent relocated to  Virginia. By Agreement dated March 22, 2016, the parties agreed that respondent would have specified visitation rights with N during the summer. It also provided that “[i]t is agreed that it is the mother who will be entitled to decide on the place of residence of the son.” In October 2015, while respondent was still residing in Germany, N. made statements to respondent that caused him to have concerns that the child was experiencing some form of abuse at the hands of E.H.  On June 29, 2016, N., with petitioner’s consent, traveled to the United States, where respondent and N. were met by respondent’s domestic partner S.C. After spending several days in Pennsylvania visiting respondent’s relatives, respondent, N., and S.C. all traveled on July 7, 2016 to Virginia, where respondent resided with S.C.  On July 7, 2016, N. and S.C. were watching the television program Power Rangers Megaforce together. N. asked S.C. why Power Rangers “have to have so much power” and S.C. explained that they have to have power to fight “bad people” to protect the world; once S.C. mentioned “bad people,” N. responded “like E.H.” S.C. testified that while she was concerned by these statement, she did not report them to respondent. The next day, while playing Power Rangers with S.C. on the floor of N.’s room, N. said to S.C that he needed to have power like the Power Rangers so he can fight “bad guys” like E.H. S.C. asked N. why he kept mentioning E.H., and N. said because he is a “bad guy” and he “hit me.” At that point, S.C. testified that she had a “huge concern” but again did not report the comments to respondent. Then, on July 9, 2016, while on an outing for ice scream, N. told both S.C. and respondent that E.H. “hit me.” At that point, according to S.C. and respondent, N. “just started spitting it all out ... spilled all the beans and explained everything in detail,” including that E.H. “pulled his eyelids, called him dumb, slapped him in the face,” and “squeezed” his “pee pee so hard and would not stop.” N. also made comments suggesting that E.H. abused E.H.’s own daughter as well and said that on one occasion in petitioner’s home (in Germany), E.H. became angry and began to shout loudly and threw a lamp, frightening N. so much that N. ran into his room. On the evening of July 9 and the morning of July 10, 2016, respondent and petitioner engaged in a series of contentious text messages. Respondent told petitioner “[N.] has been telling me that [E.H.] has been hitting him and that he calls me names and that he is mean to him. I will be reporting this to the US authorities. He told me that he is scared to be around [E.H.].” Petitioner responded by calling respondent’s allegations “absolute [sic] bogus” and stating that “[N.] for sure does not live in a household where he is scared.”  Petitioner, through her German lawyer, asked respondent to return N. to Germany on July 22, 2016. Respondent refused. N. was scheduled to return to Germany on August 25, 2016, based on arrangements made before N. left Germany to spend the summer with respondent. Before that scheduled return date, respondent cancelled N.’s airline reservation. On August 19, 2016, petitioner filed the action.

The Court found that the petitioner established a prima facie case for return to Germany, which was the childs habitual residence. It also concluded that respondent failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that there is a “grave risk” that N. would suffer physical or psychological harm by return to his mother in Germany. There never were any allegations or concerns that petitioner has abused N. Nor had there ever been any physical signs of abuse by anyone. The only indications of any possible abuse were the child’s own comments, which were originally made and investigated in Germany in October 2015 by German child protective services. That agency concluded that there was no abuse and that the N. was not in danger. N.’s most recent comments like the earlier comments, were subject to interpretation and completely uncorroborated or substantiated in any way as references to actual abuse, and also were part and parcel of a context involving the child’s fascination and perhaps obsession with Power Rangers, as well as the parties’ ongoing difficult and at times contentious relationship and respondent’s own criticisms and negative characterizations of E.H., which he conveyed to N. The court found that the case had none of the facts or circumstances that had caused other courts to refuse the return of a child based on an Article 13 defense under the Convention. It rejected respondents argument that there was a grave risk of harm because petitioner could not or will not adequately protect N. from any possibility of abuse at the hands of E.H. The Court saw nothing that would substantiate respondent’s concerns. The evidence presented was far from “clear and convincing” that any abuse ever occurred or that if N. was  returned to his mother, there was a “grave risk” that this four-year old would suffer physical or psychological harm in Germany.

Ahmed v Ahmed, 2016 WL 4691599 (E.D. Tenn.,2016)[United Kingdom] [Habitual Residence][Petition denied]

In Ahmed v Ahmed, 2016 WL 4691599 (E.D. Tenn.,2016) the district court denied the petition of  Faisal Ahmed,  a citizen of the United Kingdom, for the return of the children finding that the U.S. was the children’s habitual residence. The Father was employed as an accountant in the U.K. The Mother was  a citizen of the United States. The parties were married on December 29, 2009, in Dhaka, Bangladesh. At the time of their marriage, Father lived in London and Mother lived in Michigan, where she was studying optometry. Following their wedding, Mother continued to live in the United States until August 2011. In August 2011, Mother moved to London to live with Father. In December 2011, Mother returned to the United States and moved to Clarksville, Tennessee. In August 2013, Mother returned to London to live with Father, a move that she considered to be permanent at that time. In October 2013, the parties submitted an application to the U.K. Border Agency for Mother’s Indefinite Leave to Remain  in the U.K. The application was approved and, on March 16, 2014, Mother was issued an ILR Residence Permit allowing her to live in the U.K. for ten years. Mother became pregnant with the twins in February 2014. Following a domestic argument in May 2014, Mother traveled from the U.K. to Knoxville, where she had previously lived. Mother did not return to the U.K. in the summer of 2014. She also testified that she chose not to return to the U.K. because of the issues in her marriage. Father traveled to Knoxville on October 9, 2014, and the twin daughters, An.Z.A. and Am.Z.A., were born on November 4, 2014 in Knoxville. Father returned to London on January 5, 2015. other and the children have remained in Knoxville ever since. On May 18, 2015, the parties and their children traveled to the United Kingdom. Mother traveled to London on a round-trip ticket, with a return to Knoxville scheduled for November 15, 2015, so she could attend a professional conference and visit family. The children, as U.S. citizens, had a 90-day visa to stay in the U.K. Father testified that the family brought “everything of any value” with them to London. Mother testified that she did not bring her diplomas or her optometry instruments to the U.K., nor did she take the family jewelry that was “culturally and religiously ... very important” to her and her family. Mother testified that she agreed to travel to the U.K. “for a short summer visit” upon certain conditions that she wanted Father to fulfill “to see if our marriage was going to work” . On July 12, 2015, Mother and the children traveled from London to Bangladesh, with Father’s consent and accompanied by her father, to attend the wedding of Mother’s brother. On August 5, but instead flew from Bangladesh to Knoxville, Tennessee where they have resided since then. The action was filed on March 23, 2016.

The district court observed that the primary issue was whether the children’s habitual residence was the U.K., or the U.S. It observed that  term “habitual residence,”  has been described by the Sixth Circuit as the country where, at the time of removal or retention, “the child has been present long enough to allow acclimatization, and where this presence has a ‘degree of settled purpose from the child’s perspective.’ ”. A child “can have only one habitual residence.” The Court “must look back in time, not forward” to determine a child’s habitual residence and “focus on the child, not the parents, and examine past experience, not future intentions.”The determination of a child’s habitual residence is a question of fact. Only a change in geography and the passage of time may combine to establish a new habitual residence. The Sixth Circuit has acknowledged that the standard of “acclimatization” and “a degree of settled purpose,” “may not be appropriate in cases involving infants or other very young children. The reason the “acclimatization” standard is ill-fitting to the case of an infant or very young child is that the child is naturally “entirely dependent on its parents.”. Infants do not develop a “settled purpose” or “firmly rooted” ties to a location through school, friendships, or other activities as older children do. Unfortunately, the Sixth Circuit has not yet articulated an alternative standard or considerations for determining the habitual residence of an infant and has  expressly rejected the consideration of “shared parental intent” in determining a child’s habitual residence. The Court found that consideration of all available evidence, looking backward and focusing on the children’s past experience, was an appropriate path forward and consistent with the admonition in Robert to “look closely at the facts and circumstances of each case.” 507 F.3d at 989.

Given their young age, it was difficult to conclude how much the children had acclimated or become settled in the U.S. versus the amount of acclimatization that occurred during their time in the U.K. The facts and circumstances of the children’s past experience did not tilt the scale strongly in one way over the other, with the exception of the amount of time spent in each country. The children had spent most of their lives in the U.S., including most of their lives prior to the date of retention. While it is well settled that the “place of birth is not automatically the child’s habitual residence,” Holder, 392 F.3d at 1020, and that “a change in geography and the passage of time may combine to establish a new habitual residence,” Robert, 507 F.3d at 989, the Court questioned whether the children’s limited time in the U.K. was sufficient to establish a new habitual residence.  To the extent that the parents’ intent is relevant, the  preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that the parties had no settled mutual intent to live in either the U.S. or the U.K. on August 5, 2015, the date of the children’s retention. Looking backward from that date, there was no settled mutual intent during the children’s lives and much of Mother’s pregnancy. From the time of their birth to the date of retention, the children lived primarily in the U.S. While the place of their birth is not automatically the children’s habitual residence, Holder, 392 F.3d at 1020, the Court could not conclude that the seven to eight-week period the children spent in the U.K. was sufficient to establish that as a habitual or settled residence. The preponderance of the evidence indicated that Mother and the children traveled to the U.K. to visit and for Mother to determine whether she wanted to live with Father in the U.K. or return to the U.S. They did not bring all of their belongings to the U.K. and Mother did not sever her ties to living and working in the U.S. The children, as U.S. citizens, could only stay in the U.K. for three months. There was simply insufficient evidence that the children established deep-rooted ties or a degree of settled purpose in the U.K. in this limited time. The Court concluded that the facts and circumstances of the children’s past experience did not establish the U.K. as the children’s habitual residence, and therefore, their retention in the U.S. was not “wrongful” within the meaning of the Hague Convention.

Flores-Aldape v Kamash, 2016 WL 4430835 (N.D. Ohio, 2016)[Mexico] [Habitual Residence][Petition granted]

In Flores-Aldape v Kamash, 2016 WL 4430835 (N.D. Ohio, 2016) the district court granted the petition of  Javier Flores-Aldape for the return of his child, C.F. to Mexico. The mother, Fatin Shawki Kamash, was a US resident and naturalized citizen. Javier was a Mexican citizen. In February 2011, Javier found a job in Mexico as an aviation engineer. He bought a house in Mexico. Javier and Fatin married in November 2012 in Michigan. The next month, Fatin moved to Querétaro, Mexico on a visitor’s visa. She did not have a job in Mexico. Fatin learned she was pregnant in July 2013. The next month, she returned to the United States in anticipation of an immigration interview scheduled for September 2013.  C.F. was born in Michigan on March 30, 2014. Fatin and C.F. remained in Michigan for four months. In late July 2014, Fatin and C.F. flew to Mexico on round-trip tickets, with a return date in April. Fatin, Javier, and C.F. lived together in the family’s home in Querétaro, and C.F. was baptized in Mexico in August 2014. Later that month, Javier lost his job with General Electric, but the family remained in Mexico, living off Javier’s savings and receiving additional financial support from his parents. Given her young age, C.F. was not enrolled in daycare or any extracurricular activities and had limited interaction with the community beyond her own family. Fatin obtained a Mexican permanent resident card and opened a bank account in her name in Querétaro.  In the spring of 2015, the family celebrated C.F.’s first birthday. Fatin applied and was accepted to the pharmacy program at The University of Findlay in Ohio for the fall 2015 semester. Javier and Fatin’s relationship deteriorated, and they discussed the possibility of divorce. Fatin and C.F. left for Michigan on May 10, 2015. Javier drove them to the airport, and Fatin and Javier parted on good terms. Fatin and C.F. left their winter clothes and many of their other belongings, including C.F.’s toys and crib, in Mexico. Upon her arrival in Michigan, Fatin resumed her part-time tutoring work at Oakland Community College and enrolled C.F. in daycare. Fatin also applied for and received WIC and child care assistance benefits in Michigan. During a phone call in the first week of August, Fatin informed Javier that she and C.F. would not be returning to Querétaro. Javier claimed they agreed the visit to Michigan would last only three months, corresponding with the summer session at Oakland Community College, while Fatin maintained it was indefinite, and she never intended to go back to Mexico. 

On October 7, 2015, Javier filed the Hague Petition. The Court credited Fatin’s testimony that she and Javier desired to eventually create a long-term home in the United States. The Court found the parties did not share a present intention to begin that process with Fatin and C.F.’s May 2015 trip to Michigan. In a June 2015 e-mail Fatin confirmed the trip was meant to be limited in duration. The district court found there was no wrongful removal. Javier consented to C.F. traveling to Michigan with Fatin in May 2015. It became clear Fatin and C.F. were not returning to Mexico in early August 2015. August 5, 2015 was the date of C.F.’s retention. The Court observed that the Sixth Circuit has held “a child’s habitual residence is the place where he or she has been physically present for an amount of time sufficient for acclimatization and which has a ‘degree of settled purpose’ from the child’s perspective.” Robert, 507 F.3d at 989 (quoting Feder v. Evans-Feder, 63 F.3d 217, 224 (3d Cir. 1995)). The Sixth Circuit has also held this inquiry “must focus on the child, not the parents, and examine past experience, not future intentions.” Friedrich I, 983 F.2d at 1401. A person “can have only one habitual residence,” and “a change in geography and the passage of time” are required to establish a new habitual residence. The Sixth Circuit has repeatedly rejected the subjective intent of the parents as an additional factor in determining the child’s habitual residence. Nevertheless, it has also recognized that parental intent may be a valid consideration in cases involving very young children or children with developmental disabilities. The Court agreed parental intent is an appropriate consideration in cases like these. C.F. was just four months old when she left the United States for Mexico, and fourteen months old when she returned to visit family in Michigan. A child of that age is “too young to form any meaningful connection to a country, its inhabitants, and its locations.” Her experience of the world is limited to the environment created by her parents, and she will likely “acclimatize” quickly to any residence in which her family and daily routines are present, regardless of geographic location. The Court found that although C.F. was born in the United States, the circumstances reflected Fatin and Javier’s settled purpose to make their home -- at least for the foreseeable future -- in Mexico. Javier and Fatin established their marital home in Querétaro soon after their wedding, and they jointly participated in renovating the residence according to their preferences. Javier and Fatin also shared an intention to relocate to the United States someday. But to determine C.F.’s habitual residence, the Court had to look to the parents’ last moment of shared intent. The testimony and other evidence reflected that as of August 2015, Javier and Fatin had not jointly decided to abandon their residence in Mexico and move the family to the United States. Absent an agreed plan to abandon their home in Mexico, C.F.’s temporary visit to the United States during the summer of 2015 could not create a new habitual residence.

Blackledge v Blackledge, 2016 WL 4493691 (W.D. Pa., 2016)[Germany] [Habitual Residence] [Petition denied]

In Blackledge v Blackledge, 2016 WL 4493691 (W.D. Pa., 2016) the district court denied the petition filed by Charles Blackledge on July 6, 2016, seeking the return of his minor child (“J.B.”) to Berlin, Germany.   The Petitioner was a citizen of the U.S. The Respondent was a citizen of Ukraine, where the couple were married in  2008, and J.B. was born there on June 26, 2008. The parties resided there until Petitioner obtained employment in Ireland in 2009. They thereafter resided in several European nations for varying periods of time. In June or July 2011, Petitioner began his current position in Germany. Around the same time, Respondent was accepted into graduate school at the University of Pittsburgh. The parties traveled together to Pittsburgh in August 2011, and established a residence for Respondent and J.B. Petitioner remained in Germany to continue his new job. Respondent and J.B. remained in Pittsburgh for two years while Respondent attended graduate school. Respondent and J.B. then returned to Germany in August 2013 to live with Petitioner. Respondent was able to continue her graduate studies remotely. J.B. was enrolled in a primary school , where the child completed kindergarten and first grade during the 2013 – 14 and 2014 – 15 academic years. After approximately two years in Germany, Respondent determined that she would need to return to Pittsburgh to complete her graduate degree. The parties agreed that J.B. would accompany Respondent back to Pittsburgh. Upon their return to Pittsburgh in August 2015, J.B. was enrolled in Colfax for the second grade. Respondent continued her graduate studies and Petitioner continued to work in Germany. Once back in Pittsburgh, the Respondent filed for divorce on April 7, 2016. Petitioner demanded the return of J.B. to Germany.

Petitioner claimed that he and Respondent had a verbal agreement by which J.B. was to accompany Respondent to Pittsburgh for one year while Respondent completed her graduate degree, and after which J.B. would return to Germany.
The Court found that J.B. was retained by Respondent beginning in August 2016. The Court observed that “Habitual residence” is the place in which a child “ ‘has been physically present for an amount of time sufficient for acclimatization and which has a degree of settled purpose from the child’s perspective.’ ” Karpenko, 619 F.3d at 263. Habitual residence is a “concept that focuses on past experience, not future intentions.” Karkkainen, 445 F.3d at 294 (citing Friedrich v. Friedrich, 983 F.2d 1396, 1401 (6th Cir. 1993)). To that end, the Court examines a child’s experiences in, and contacts with, his or her place of residence to determine whether he or she is “firmly rooted,” and not merely acculturated. A child’s academics, social engagement, participation in extracurricular activities, and routines are all central to finding acclimatization and a settled purpose. There “must be ‘a sufficient degree of continuity. The credible facts were strongly suggestive of a degree of continuity and settled purpose sufficient for the Court to find that J.B. , who was interviewed in camera, was acclimatized to Pittsburgh. J.B.’s record of academic achievement and engagement at Colfax, significant social contacts, wide ranging extracurricular activities, substantial familiarity with Pittsburgh, its institutions, and its culture, and unequivocally favorable opinion of all the above, demonstrated that J.B. had not only “formed meaningful connections with the people and places [he] encountered” in Pittsburgh, but that his life has attained “ ‘a sufficient degree of continuity to be properly described as settled. That notwithstanding, parental intent is still part of the Court’s inquiry. Evidence of shared intent by the parties – or a lack thereof – can trump evidence of acclimatization, particularly when the child is young. The shared intent of Petitioner and Respondent was far from clear.  The Court found that the beyond agreeing that J.B. would reside with Respondent when she traveled to Pittsburgh for school – as he had in the past – there was no credible evidence of an agreement for a specific duration. A ‘child can lose its habitual attachment to a place even without a parent’s consent’…when ‘the objective facts point unequivocally’ to the conclusion that a child’s relative attachments to two countries have changed.” The credible facts, as found by the Court, clearly indicated that attachments  shifted for J.B. In light of the lack of evidence of an agreement regarding a specific duration for J.B.’s stay in Pittsburgh, as well as the Court’s determination that Respondent exhibited a greater degree of credibility than Petitioner, and given the strong evidence of J.B.’s acclimatization, the Court found J.B.’s habitual residence to be Pittsburgh. Therefore,  Respondent’s retention was not wrongful..

Fernandez v Bailey, 2016 WL 4474633 (M.D. Florida, 2016) [Panama][Federal & State Judicial Remedies][Temporary Restraining Order]

In Fernandez v Bailey, 2016 WL 4474633 (M.D. Florida, 2016) Petitioner father filed a Petition for Return of Children To Panama. He claimed that Respondent, the mother of the children, absconded to Florida with their eight-year old twin sons as of March 20, 2013. This was the second time that the Respondent has removed the children to the United States from Panama. Respondent returned the children to Panama only after a United States District Court in the Eastern District of Missouri ordered her to do so in September 2010. Petitioner alleged that the children resided with him in Panama City, Panama, up until February 20, 2013. Petitioner maintained that the delay in bringing this action was a result of the Respondent’s concealment of the children’s location from Petitioner through the use of aliases and frequent relocations across the state. The Court granted a temporary restraining order finding preliminarily that Petitioner would  suffer irreparable harm unless the Order was granted. Given that Respondent again had removed the children from Panama, and refused to return the children from Florida to Panama, there existed a clear risk that Respondent would further secret the children and herself in violation of the Hague Convention, the ICARA, and other applicable law.  The Court preliminarily found that  the allegations established a prima facie claim of wrongful removal under Article 3 of the Hague Convention and that the fact-specific nature of numerous issues necessitated an evidentiary hearing. Nevertheless, at the Temporary Restraining Order stage, the Court found that Petitioner had shown that there is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits given his preliminary establishment of a prima facie case, the prior wrongful removal by Respondent, and the concealment tactics purportedly used by Respondent that would undermine a “well-settled” affirmative defense. In addition, the Court found that the threatened injury outweighed any harm the relief would inflict on Respondent and that that the issuance of the Temporary Restraining Order would l serve the public interest. The Court set a hearing date due to the fact that the Hague Convention provides a six week window for the adjudication of such cases. It required Respondent to produce the children at the hearing. Respondent was prohibited from removing the children from the jurisdiction of the Court pending a hearing on the merits, and further directed that no person acting in concert or participating with Respondent shall take any action to remove the children from the jurisdiction of this Court pending a determination on the merits of the Verified Petition for Return of Children to Panama.

Sadoun v. Guigui, 2016 WL 4444890 ( S.D. Florida, 2016) [France] [Grave Risk of Harm] [Petition denied] [Guardian Ad Litem]

In Sadoun v. Guigui, 2016 WL 4444890 ( S.D. Florida, 2016)  Petitioner and Respondent had 3 children: S.A.E.S., born in 2001, L.E.J.S., born in 2004, and S.L.J.S., born in 2008.  Their eldest daughter was 16 and  not subject to the Convention. The Children were born in Paris and resided there with their parents in the family’s apartment for most of their lives. On June 29, 2015, Respondent and the parties’ four children departed France for the family’s annual trip to their vacation home in Miami Beach, Florida, while Petitioner remained behind in France to attend to his ailing father. Respondent and the Children did not return to Paris on the date they were scheduled to return. The parties stipulated that Petitioner met his burden of presenting a prima facie case of wrongful removal or retention under the Convention. However, the Court found that: (1) Respondent established by clear and convincing evidence that returning the Children to France would expose them to a “grave risk” of physical or psychological harm, and (2) that Respondent  proved by a preponderance of the evidence that S.A.E.S. and L.E.J.S. were of a sufficient age and maturity to permit the Court to appropriately consider their objections to repatriation. 

At trial, the parties’ eldest child, L.L.S., testified that Petitioner drank alcohol every night. Her testimony also revealed that during Petitioner’s drunken tirades, he would call each of the Children “dummy,” tell them they were “really stupid,” and refer to his wife as a “Bitch” or “slut,” which shocked his daughter. Respondent’s sister testified to Petitioner’s increasingly aggressive behavior while drinking and of the verbal onslaughts he unleashed upon his family during these alcohol-infused episodes. She testified “He was already seated with a drink in his hands. As we went on ... the night he kept on drinking and his speech got slurred. Very angry. Very aggressive. He called me a bitch many times in front of the children.” According to Respondent, Petitioner’s belittling of her and the Children was anything but an isolated event. (“[Petitioner’s] verbally abusive. He just recently called me a prostitute in the middle of a wedding in Miami. He is continuously demeaning me. It was terrible.”  According to Petitioner, he was only drunk twice in his life. The Court received a substantial amount of credible testimony that throughout the parties’ seventeen-year marriage, Petitioner exhibited a pattern of coercive behavior towards Respondent that is widely recognized as domestic violence. Respondent’s sister testified that Petitioner isolated Respondent by greatly restricting her ability to travel, unless it was with the parties’ children. Petitioner financially abused Respondent by restricting her access to the couple’s shared financial resources in what appeared to have been an effort to reduce her sense of autonomy. Petitioner directed this pattern of abusive behavior toward his children in a physical manner as well. Muriel Guigui testified that she witnessed instances of Petitioner’s physical abuse of the Children when Petitioner would pull the boys’ ears and drag them to their rooms where he would repeatedly hit them to a point where they screamed out, “[p]lease stop, you’re hurting me.” On one occasion, Muriel entered the room after Petitioner left and found the boys crying with red marks on their bodies where Petitioner had struck them. Respondent convincingly recounted the brutal methods Petitioner frequently employed to “discipline” the children for talking loudly. (“A. He would strike their legs mostly because they were in a protective position. Their arms and legs with the belt. And usually to the head, a lot of times in the head. It’s hard to show proof.”). The Court also received into evidence an audio recording of the parties’ two sons being viciously beaten by Petitioner while the boys unsuccessfully begged for mercy. The Guardian Ad Litem discussed several instances of physical abuse that the Children brought up during their individual interviews. No one could reasonably contend that when Petitioner viciously struck his sixteen-year-old daughter in the head and possibly rendered her unconscious—in front of his seven-year-old daughter —that action was anything short of child abuse. Victims of spousal abuse often do not come forward to report instances of domestic violence for many reasons and, therefore, a lack of near-contemporaneous documentation does not necessarily render a victim’s claims unbelievable. The Court found that Respondent’s credible testimony that Petitioner harmed S.A.E.S and L.E.J.S. as a result of the disproportionate force that Petitioner frequently inflicted on them with either a belt or his hands—whether closed or open—together with Respondent’s unrefuted testimony about Petitioner’s emotional torment and physical abuse of her and L.L.S., “demonstrated a non-negligible probability of [Petitioner] someday physically injuring” the Children. Petitioner’s physical abuse of his children, the overwhelming evidence of psychological abuse of the Children and Respondent—particularly when Petitioner hurls obscene epithets at her in their presence—other indicia of domestic violence, and Petitioner’s reckless disregard for his family’s safety when he drove while intoxicated, led the Court to an obvious conclusion: it would be irresponsible to think the risk to the children less than grave.

Cohen v Cohen, 2016 WL 4546980 (E.D. Missouri, 2016) [israel] [Habitual Residence] [Petition denied]

In Cohen v Cohen, 2016 WL 4546980 (E.D. Missouri, 2016) the Petitioner  Father was an Israeli citizen and resided in Israel. The Mother was a citizen of both the United States and Israel. The parties were married in Israel and were the parents of a son, O.N.C., born December 6, 2009 in Israel. The father  had substantial debt and an extensive criminal record in Israel which resulted in a Stay of Exit Order placed on his visa which prohibited him from leaving Israel. Both parties testified that their plan was for Mother to move to the U.S. with O.N.C., find a place to live, enroll O.N.C. in school, and work to help Father pay off the debts which were preventing him from leaving Israel. Father would join them once his debts were paid off and they would live together in St. Louis. According to Mother, they decided to move because their financial situation was difficult and they did not see a future for themselves and their son in Israel. It was Father’s testimony that their intention was to live in the United States for three to five years to save enough money to buy a house in Israel. With the agreement of Father, Mother and O.N.C. traveled to St. Louis, Missouri on December 3, 2012.  Over the next two years, Mother and O.N.C. returned to Israel twice, each time on round-trip tickets.  Mother filed for divorce in St. Louis in July 2014 and on March 13, 2015, she was granted a divorce and sole custody. The father filed his district court complaint on November 25, 2015. The district Court observed that this case turned on whether O.N.C. s habitual residence changed to the United States. It noted that in the Eighth Circuit, factors relevant to the determination of habitual residence include the settled purpose of the move to the new country from the child’s perspective, parental intent regarding the move, the change in geography, the passage of time, and the acclimatization of the child to the new country.” Stern v. Stern, 639 F.3d 449, 452 (8th Cir. 2011).  Habitual residence is determined by examining “past experience, not future intentions.” Sorenson v. Sorenson, 559 F.3d 871, 873 (8th Cir. 2009) “The ‘settled purpose’ of a family’s move to a new country is a central element of the habitual residence inquiry.” Barzilay, 600 F.3d at 918. However, “settled purpose “need not be to stay in a ... location forever. What is crucial is that the purpose “have a ‘sufficient degree of continuity to be properly described as settled.’ ”  Settled purpose must be from the child’s perspective, although parental intent is also considered. 

The district court found that O.N.C.’s habitual residence had changed to the United States and denied the petition. It found that he had experienced a clear change in geography and a substantial amount of time, over three years, had passed since the move to the United States. The evidence demonstrated that both Mother and Father decided to have O.N.C. reside in the U.S. Settled purpose need not be to stay forever so long as there is a “sufficient degree of continuity to be properly described as settled.”  The last three years and eight months—more than half his life—had been spent in St. Louis, Missouri.. There was ittle evidence in the record concerning O.N.C.’s connections with Israel, while it appeared that O.N.C. had considerable connections with his current environment. He enjoyed a close relationship with his three maternal uncles, and he and Mother found a community with whom they socialized. The Court concluded that as of October 2014, O.N.C. had been in Missouri long enough to have a “sufficient degree of continuity to be properly described as settled” from his perspective, and that the parties intended to relocate to the United States and establish O.N.C.’s residence here. Prior to the move, the parties applied together for approval of O.N.C.’s naturalization application for United States citizenship. It was understood by the parties that Father would not be able to leave Israel until his debts were paid off and the stay order on his visa was lifted. Until then, their intent was always for Mother and O.N.C. to go ahead of Father and settle in the United States. The best evidence of this intent was the actions taken by the parties. Mother and O.N.C. traveled to the U.S. despite the known issues surrounding Father’s visa. Mother secured full-time employment, enrolled O.N.C. in school, bought and registered a car, applied for a Missouri driver’s license, and paid taxes. She eventually rented an apartment for them. The facts demonstrated that Mother was establishing a life here for the family, and for the next two years, the parties continued to act in furtherance of their plan. Not until April of 2014, when the marriage deteriorated, did Father claim the relocation had been intended to be temporary.  The change in geography, passage of time since the move to the United States, O.N.C.’s acclimatization to his current environment, the degree of settled purpose in his environment from his perspective, and the shared intent of the parties all pointed to the U.S. as O.N.C.’s habitual residence.

Adamis v Lampropoulou, --- Fed.Appx. ----, 2016 WL 4470959 (Mem) (2d Cir.,2016)[Greece] [Consent][Petition denied]

In Adamis v Lampropoulou, --- Fed.Appx. ----, 2016 WL 4470959 (Mem) (2d Cir.,2016) the Second Circuit affirmed a judgment which denied Nikolaos Adamis petition for return of his son, D.A., to Greece following his removal to the United States by D.A.’s mother, appellee Fotini Lampropoulou. The district court found that Adamis had consented to the removal of D.A. from Greece, which meant that the move was not “wrongful” under the Hague Convention. The Second Circuit observed that “In cases arising under the [Hague] Convention, a district court’s factual determinations are reviewed for clear error. However, the district court’s application of the Convention to the facts it has found, like the interpretation of the Convention, is subject to de novo review.” See Gitter v. Gitter, 396 F.3d 124, 129 (2d Cir. 2005) When a finding is based on a credibility determination, “particularly strong deference should be granted to the finding in light of the factfinder’s unique ability to assess the witness.” Ortega v. Duncan, 333 F.3d 102, 107 (2d Cir. 2003). It held that the district court’s finding that Adamis consented to D.A.’s removal was not clearly erroneous. The district court relied on the testimony of Lampropoulou, D.A., and D.A.’s stepsister, Toula. Their statements were corroborated by a recorded conversation that occurred approximately ten days before Lampropoulou moved with D.A. to the United States. The conversation confirmed that Lampropoulou could live in the United States with D.A., and could “come and go” to Greece with D.A. Crediting Lampropoulou’s testimony, the district court found that there were no further conversations between the couple about the move until after Lampropoulou had already arrived in the United States, and that Adamis’s explanation for the recording – that he had consented only to a short trip to New York – was not credible. The Court deferred to those credibility findings which, particularly in conjunction with the recorded conversations, were not clearly erroneous.

Smith v Smith, 2016 WL 4154938 (W.D. North Carolina, 2016) [France] [Federal & State Judicial Remedies] [Temporary Restraining Order Granted ] [Winter Rule].

In Smith v Smith, 2016 WL 4154938 (W.D. North Carolina, 2016) Petitioner (Father) alleged that Respondent wrongfully retained the parties’ son “C.R.S.”, born in the United States in 2004, from his habitual residence in France, and that such wrongful retention occurred on or about June 30, 2016. The mother and son purchased round-trip tickets from France to North Carolina, departing June 28, 2016 and returning August 24, 2016; the child was attending sleepaway camp in the United States, where he had been since July 2nd, 2016 and he was scheduled to return  August 3rd, and would resume school in France. Petitioner  alleged that on July 19, 2016, he was unexpectedly served with Respondent’s North Carolina Complaint for Divorce and Custody, which Petitioner read as Respondent’s unequivocal intent to remain in North Carolina with the child. The Court observed that a TRO which is procedurally governed by Rule 65(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides as follows: The court may issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral notice to the adverse party or its attorney only if: (A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and (B) the movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required. In considering the issuance of TRO, the court also considered current case law governing the issuance of such relief, Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008)]. In keeping with Winter, the Fourth Circuit found that first, a plaintiff must now show that he will “likely succeed on the merits” regardless of whether the balance of hardships weighs in his favor.  Also, the likelihood of success on the merits requires more than simply showing that “grave or serious questions are presented.”  Second, the plaintiff must make a clear showing that he will likely be irreparably harmed absent preliminary relief. That the plaintiff’s harm might simply outweigh the defendant’s harm is no longer sufficient.  The showing of irreparable injury is mandatory even if the plaintiff has already demonstrated a strong showing on the probability of success on the merits. Third, the Court is admonished to give “particular regard” to the “public consequences” of any relief granted. Finally, there no longer exists any flexible interplay between the factors, because all four elements of the test must be satisfied.  White v. Miller, 2011 WL 1168045, 2 (D.S.C. Mar. 7, 2011).
The court concluded that a TRO would issue prohibiting Respondent or anyone acting on her behalf from leaving the district with the child pending disposition of the  Hague Petition.

Padilla v. Troxell, 2016 WL 4098588 (W.D. Virginia, 2016) [Mexico] [Consent Defense Established] [Petition Denied]

In Padilla v. Troxell, 2016 WL 4098588 (W.D. Virginia, 2016) on May 23, 2016, Petitioner Xochitl Jazmin Velasco Padilla (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition claiming that her son, J.V., was brought into this country without her consent and in contravention of her custody rights by the child’s legal father, Respondent Joe Richard Troxell. The district court found that J.V. was wrongfully removed (or retained) from his habitual residence in violation of her custody rights. However, Respondent established that Petitioner consented to J.V. being brought into this country. Because consent of the petitioning parent is a defense to the Petition, and because Respondent had adequately shown that Petitioner consented to J.V.’s removal from Mexico, the petition for return was denied. Although Respondent was not J.V.’s biological father, he was listed on J.V.’s birth certificate as his father and was listed with the full consent of both Petitioner and Respondent. Under Mexican law, as stipulated by the parties, Respondent enjoyed the same parental rights as Petitioner. In December of 2014, Petitioner and Respondent discussed Petitioner’s desire to live in the United States and whether J.V. would be better off with Respondent. According to Respondent, Petitioner said her other two sons were born in the United States, so they were U.S. citizens, but that she would have a problem moving with J.V. Respondent agreed to help Petitioner get papers for J.V. and bring him to the United States. After J.V.’s passport was secured in December 2014, J.V. returned with Respondent to his home in Acapulco. A few months later, Respondent acquired a “fiancee visa” for Blanca Leyva, which permitted Leyva to enter the United States for ninety days to marry Respondent. According to Respondent, it would have taken too long to get a visa for J.V., so he paid a smuggler to take the three-year-old J.V. across the U.S./Mexican border.  J.V. was picked up during a raid by Border Patrol near El Paso, Texas. After a review of his documents, J.V. was released into Respondent’s custody, and Respondent, J.V., and Leyva settled in Halifax County, Virginia. The Court rejected Petitioner’s story. She agreed that she wanted Respondent on J.V.’s birth certificate, and she agreed that she went with Respondent to acquire a passport for J.V. in December 2014; she contended, however, that Respondent took J.V. without her knowledge or consent. The district court found that the  evidence established that Petitioner consented to his removal and had no objections to J.V. remaining in Respondent’s care so long as Respondent supported her financially. The court pointed out, in a footnote that that “consent” would seem to obviate the “wrongful” element of Petitioner’s prima facie case, but the Convention nevertheless presupposes that one parent may consent to wrongful removal.

Tokic v. Tokic, 2016 WL 4046801 (S.D. Texas, 2016) [France] [Petition granted] [Grave Risk of Harm and Article 20 Defenses Not Proven]

In Tokic v. Tokic, 2016 WL 4046801 (S.D. Texas) the petitioner sought the return of his twelve year old and ten year old sons, asserting that on or about April 1, 2016, Jessica Tokic, their mother, abducted them from France and brought them to Texas where they remained. The parties stipulated or conceded that France was the children’s country of habitual residence.  The Court  determined that the respondent’s removal of the children to the United States was a breach of the petitioner’s “rights of custody” under the laws of France. Article 371-1 of the French Civil Code, parental authority is defined as “a set of rights and duties whose finality is the welfare of the child.” “It is vested in the father and mother until the majority or emancipation of the child in order to protect him in his security, health and morality, to ensure his education and allow his development, showing regard to his person.”  Article 371-3 further provides that “[a] child may not, without the permission of the father and mother, leave the family home and he may be removed from it only in cases of necessity as determined by statute.” The court found that petitioner established a prima facie case for return. It rejected, inter alia,  Respondents grave risk of harm” defense. The evidence failed to support the respondent’s claims concerning the petitioner’s abusive behavior. While the allegations made against the petitioner presented serious concerns, the respondent had not presented any actual evidence that the petitioner had a history of abusing the children or that he actually abused them. Although both parties engaged in arguments in the presence of their sons, the evidence did not support the view that one party was any more overbearing or aggressive than another, or that any physical altercation ever ensued. Respondent did not show by clear and convincing evidence that the children would face a grave risk of harm or be subjected to an intolerable situation if they were required to return to France.  It also rejected application of Article 20’s public policy exception, which  is to be invoked only on ‘the rare occasion that return of a child would utterly shock the conscience of the court or offend all notions of due process.’ ” Souratgar v. Lee, 720 F.3d 96, 108 (2nd Cir. 2013) The extraordinary nature of the public policy defense is further exemplified by the fact that, to date, no federal court has denied a petition for repatriation based upon this defense.

Dias v. De Souza, 2016 WL 4083354 (D. Mass, 2016)[Brazil [Petition granted ] [Grave Risk of Harm Defense Not Established]

In Dias v. De Souza, 2016 WL 4083354 (D. Mass, 2016) Marina De Aguiar Dias (“Petitioner”) the mother sought the return of her thirteen-year-old daughter, H.D., to Brazil. Petitioner and Respondent,  an unmarried couple,  separated approximately three years after H.D.’s birth., Petitioner and H.D. lived together in a house located in the Water Box  neighborhood of Salvador, Bahia, Brazil, which they shared with Petitioner’s parents and grandmother. In May 2013 Respondent moved to Massachusetts.  On June 13, 2015, accompanied by Respondent’s mother and with Petitioner’s permission, H.D. left Brazil to temporarily visit Respondent in Worcester, Massachusetts. On June 18, 2016, Respondent and his mother called Petitioner and asked for her permission to keep H.D. in the United States. Petitioner declined to give her permission, but Respondent nevertheless kept H.D. in the United States over Petitioner’s objection. The district court found that Petitioner established a prima facie case and that Respondent failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that H.D.’s return would subject her to a grave risk of harm or otherwise place her in an intolerable situation. Respondent testified that areas “around” the Red River neighborhood where H.D. would return were extremely dangerous and controlled by drug traffickers, but did not demonstrate that H.D. would face a grave risk of harm due to the violence in those areas. Respondent testified that he believed H.D., while not in school, would spend the majority of her time inside her house if she were to return to Brazil, and Petitioner likewise testified that when H.D. previously lived in Brazil, she was not allowed to walk outside without adult supervision.  Petitioner’s husband testified that the house to which H.D. would return was located in a calm, middle-class neighborhood, and this testimony was uncontroverted by Respondent’s testimony, which focused on slum neighborhoods “around” the Red River area. Respondent also failed to show that H.D.’s living conditions in Salvador would constitute a grave risk of physical or psychological harm or lead to an otherwise intolerable situation. Respondent’s claim that H.D.’s return to Brazil would result in a grave risk of harm or an otherwise intolerable situation due to isolation also failed. It was  undisputed that H.D. would attend school outside of her house, and Petitioner testified that the school which H.D. would attend offered extracurricular activities, including athletics. Living in Salvador with Petitioner may reduce or even eliminate H.D.’s freedom to walk in the street unaccompanied by an adult, but an “intolerable situation was not meant to encompass return to a home where living conditions are less palatable,” and the situation envisioned by Respondent—where H.D. would spend most of her free time at home watching television and playing video games—does not approach a showing of “clear abuse.”

Pennacchia v Hayes, 2016 WL 4059246 (D. Idaho,2016) [Italy] [Habitual residence] [Petition denied]

In Pennacchia v Hayes, 2016 WL 4059246 (D. Idaho,2016) SAPH was born in Seattle, Washington on August 24, 2010. In October of 2010, after SAPH’s birth, the parties decided that Ms. Hayes and SAPH would travel with Mr. Pennacchia to his home in Anagni, Italy to try and live as a family. Petitioner argued the parties’ intention was to move to and live in Italy as a family and, therefore, SAPH’s habitual residence was Italy because that is where she had lived from the time she was two months old, attended preschool, and is where the locus of her family and social environment had developed for the majority of her life. Respondent argued that she agreed to live with the Petitioner in Italy during her year of maternity leave but that it was a “trial basis” and a “conditional stay” that could be terminated if the parties’ relationship did not work out. The District Court denied the petition finding that Seattle was the childs habitual residence. In Mozes, 239 F.3d at 1074 the Ninth Circuit instructs that where, as here, the child at issue has “not yet reached a stage in their development where they are deemed capable of autonomous decisions as to their residence,” the appropriate inquiry is the subjective intent of the parents. Thus, the Court will “look for the last shared, settled intent of the parents.” After taking into account the shared, settled intent of the parents, the Court then asks whether there has been sufficient acclimatization of the child in the new country to trump that intent. Mozes, 239 F.3d at 1074.  Before traveling to Italy in October of 2010, Ms. Hayes made several arrangements and executed many documents evidencing her intention was that SAPH’s habitual residence was the United States. Following SAPH’s birth, Ms. Hayes executed a will and opened a college savings plan for SAPH under Section 529 of the Internal Revenue Code. Ms. Hayes prepared paperwork to appoint guardians for SAPH in the United States. Ms. Hayes presented the document to Mr. Pennacchia who agreed to and signed the paperwork appointing the United States guardians. Ms. Hayes also obtained a United States passport for SAPH, private United States medical insurance, a Social Security account, and listed SAPH as her dependent on her United States taxes. The Respondent took other actions that demonstrate her own intention was to remain a resident of the United States. She consistently maintained a home, vehicle, bank accounts, credit cards, driver’s license, and health care all in the United States. In addition, the Respondent paid taxes and voted in the United States and traveled on a United States passport. These actions only established the Respondent’s residence, not SAPH’s. However, they were indicative of the Respondent’s intentions concerning her own permanent residence and, naturally, her intentions as to SAPH’s place of habitual residence. It is reasonable to infer the Respondent’s intention was for her infant child to be a habitual resident of the same country that she too called home. The Court found Petitioner failed to prove, that the parties’ intention was for SAPH’s habitual residence to be Italy. Instead, the Court finds the evidence proves that SAPH’s habitual residence was and is the United States. cases where there is no shared, “settled intention,” a country may be deemed a child’s habitual residence if unequivocal and objective facts prove the child has acclimatized to the new country to a degree that the Court could “say with confidence that the child’s relative attachments to the two countries have changed to the point where requiring return to the original forum would now be tantamount to taking the child ‘out of the family and social environment in which its life has developed.’ The Court found the evidence did  not show that SAPH has acclimated to Italy such that her habitual residence has changed from the United States. Petitioner offered only very limited evidence of SAPH’s Italian influences or her acclimatization. The Respondent came forward with compelling, credible evidence that SAPH’s habitual residence was, and remained, the United States during their time in Italy. While in Italy, SAPH attended a trilingual school where she was known as the “American Girl,” celebrated the Fourth of July and, for nine months, had an American-English speaking nanny. SAPH traveled to the United States frequently and for extended stays with her American family and friends. These strong cultural ties to the United States demonstrated that despite her residing in Italy for large portions of the year, she retained her original habitual residence in the United States.

Toufighjou v Tritschler, 2016 WL 3883193 (M.D. Florida, 2016) [Canada] [Defense of Consent Not Established] [Petition granted]

In Toufighjou v Tritschler, 2016 WL 3883193 (M.D. Florida, 2016) Toufighjou (father) and Tritschler (mother) were residents of Canada and had a three year old child, A.R.T. In July of 2015, both Toufighjou and Tritschler signed paperwork for A.R.T. to attend a daycare program in Florida. On August 2, 2015, Toufighjou went on a short vacation to the Canadian side of Niagara Falls, which was to end on August 6, 2015. On August 5, 2015, Tritschler informed Toufighjou that she would be going to a friend's home for a few days. Toufighjou soon discovered that Tritschler had crossed the border into the United States and traveled to Florida with the child. Tritschler removed the child from Canada with no warning to Toufighjou, and Toufighjou testified that Tritschler did not take her personal belongings to Florida. Immediately thereafter, Toufighjou contacted the police and hired an attorney. Toufighjou filed a request for return of the child with the Canadian government and took other formal and informal steps to secure his child's return to Canada. Days after arriving in Florida with the child. On June 23, 2016, Toufighjou commenced the proceeding for return. Tritschler did not dispute and the Court found that Toufighjou established a prima facie case. It rejected Tritschler’s defense of consent to or subsequent acquiescence in the removal or retention” of the child. Convention Art. 13(a); 22 U.S.C. § 9003(e)(2)(B). The facts did not establish that Toufighjou consented to his child's removal from Canada to Florida. A.R.T.'s removal was made without warning and while Toufighjou was on a short vacation. Tritschler did not tell Toufighjou that she was going to remove his child, and Toufighjou therefore had no opportunity to consent to his child's removal to Florida. Although Tritschler has come forward with daycare paperwork that Toufighjou signed in April of 2015, that does not carry Tritschler's burden of demonstrating that Toufighjou consented to the August 2015 removal of his child. In addition, the record did not show that Toufighjou acquiesced to his child's removal after that removal was made known to him.

Perla v Vasquez, 2016 WL 3878495 (D. Maryland, 2016) [El Salvador] [Venue]

In Perla v Vasquez, 2016 WL 3878495 (D. Maryland, 2016) Petitioner Jose Omar Flores Perla (Father) filed a verified petition against Respondent Jacqueline Ivonneth Perla Velasquez (Mother), his former wife, alleging that the child was in Maryland, seeking the return of the parties’ minor child, to El Salvador, from the United States where the Mother allegedly wrongfully removed and retained him on or after April 27, 2014. The Mother filed a Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, to Transfer Venue. The district court granted the motion, transferring the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas in Houston. The court found that the Mother and the Child lived in Houston since moving to the United States, except for a period of time from Spring 2015 until early January, 2016 that they spent in Maryland for Respondent to care for her mother, Sandra Velasquez, who lived in Maryland.  The district court observed that 22 U.S.C. § 9003(a) provides that a person seeking a child’s return “may do so by commencing a civil action by filing a petition for the relief sought in any court which has jurisdiction of such action and which is authorized to exercise its jurisdiction in the place where the child is located at the time the petition is filed.” The district court pointed out that section 9003(a) clearly confers jurisdiction; whether § 9003(b) pertains to jurisdiction or venue is less clear. It found after a hearing that the Child was in Texas on January 11, 2016, when Petitioner filed suit; and the parties agreed that “located” refers to where the Child was on January 11, 2016. Located” under ICARA does not require a showing of residency but contemplates the place where the abducted children are discovered. Regardless whether 22 U.S.C. § 9003(b) pertains to jurisdiction or venue, the proper place for this proceeding to have been filed was Texas, not Maryland. See 22 U.S.C. § 9003(b). The district court exercised its jurisdiction to transfer a civil action to another district or division pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), for the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice.

O.A. v D.B., Slip Copy, 2016 WL 3748779 (Table), 2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 51089(U) (Fam. Ct.,2016) [Norway] [New York Family Court][Petition Denied]

In O.A. v D.B., Slip Copy, 2016 WL 3748779 (Table), 2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 51089(U) (Fam. Ct.,2016) Petitioner Father, O.A., a Norwegian citizen, filed a petition in Family  Court for the return of his daughters, D.A.P. and D.P. to Norway. The petition was brought pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (1343 UNTS 89, TIAS No. 11, 670, 1343 [1980]), and its domestic implementing legislation, the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, 42 USC §§ 11601. Respondent mother, D.B., an American citizen, opposed the petition and argued that a return of the family to Norway will subject the subject children to a grave risk of harm because of the repeated domestic violence petitioner inflicted upon respondent. Respondent also alleged that some of the said domestic violence incidents occurred in the presence of the eldest subject child. The Court held a hearing and found that the petitioner had established, by a preponderance of the evidence, each required element under the Hague Convention. It also found that  respondent failed to establish that the subject children would be subjected to a grave risk of harm, psychologically or physically, if they return to Norway and granted the petition.

Comment: 

        It appears to us that the Family Court, a court of limited jurisdiction, lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the petition. 

A petition for the return of a child commencing a civil action for the return of a child must be filed "in any court which has jurisdiction of such action." 22 U.S.C. § 9003 (b), formerly cited as 42 USC § 11603 (b). The New York State Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear these proceedings. N.Y. Const, art VI, § 7[a].  On the other hand, the Family Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, whose jurisdiction is proscribed by Article VI, § 13 of the New York State Constitution. It has not been conferred with jurisdiction under  Article VI, § 13 of the New York state constitution to determine such cases. 

A court hearing a Hague Convention proceeding must have jurisdiction of the action and must be authorized to exercise its jurisdiction in the place where the child is located at the time the petition is filed. 22 U.S.C. § 9003 (b), formerly cited as 42 USC § 11603 (b). Family Court is not authorized to exercise such jurisdiction. While 22 U.S.C. § 9003, formerly cited as 42 USC § 11603, grants original  jurisdiction of these proceedings to State and federal district courts, it does not grant jurisdiction to state courts of limited jurisdiction, such as the family court and surrogates court, nor does it purport to do so. Domestic Relations Law §77-a, the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, which provides that a “court of this state may enforce an order for the return of the child made under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction as if it were a child custody determination”, does not authorize the commencement of a civil action for the return of a child.


It appears that the Family Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear Hague Convention cases. This has been confirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which has held that " [t]he phrase “in any court which has jurisdiction of such action,” 42 U.S.C. § 11603(b), underscores that while § 11603(a) confers jurisdiction in a particular federal forum (i.e., in United States district courts), it does not confer jurisdiction in particular state courts (e.g., a family-law court; a juvenile court; or a court of general jurisdiction); the appropriate state forum for an action under the Hague Convention is an issue of state law. The court in which the petition is filed must also be “authorized to exercise its jurisdiction in the place where the child is located at the time the petition is filed.”  Ozaltin v. Ozaltin, 708 F.3d 355, 360 (2d Cir. 2013). See footnote 25 

Neumann v Neumann, 2015 WL 3661907 (E.D. Michigan, 2016) [Mexico] [Federal & State Judicial Remedies] [Stay Pending Appeal Denied]

In Neumann v Neumann, 2015 WL 3661907 (E.D. Michigan, 2016) on May 17, 2016, the district court granted the petition for return in part and ordered Respondent Julie Neumann to return two of the three minor children, JSN and MKN, to Mexico by June 30, 2016.  Julie filed a motion to stay the Court’s return order pending appeal. The Court applied the four traditional stay factors which guide the Court’s analysis: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that [s]he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” Chafin v. Chafin, 133 S. Ct. 1017, 1027 (2013). The Court denied Julie’s motion, concluding that none of the four factors relevant to the appropriateness of a stay weighed in favor of issuing one here.

Hernandez v Cardoso, 2016 WL 3742858 (N.D. Ill, 2016) [Mexico] [Grave Risk of Harm] [Petition denied]

In Hernandez v Cardoso, 2016 WL 3742858 (N.D. Ill, 2016) Petitioner John Hernandez petitioned for the return of his son, AE, to Mexico. It was undisputed that Petitioner established a prima facie case. The petition was denied because there was a grave risk that return of AE to Mexico would expose him to physical or psychological harm. During the hearing, both Hernandez and Cardoso testified that they both used physical discipline on the children, but the parties dispute whose discipline was more forceful. Cardoso testified that Hernandez would hit her in front of the children “a lot” and that he wanted the children to watch him hit her. She would ask him to let the children leave the room when he was hitting her, and he would say “I want the children here. I don’t want them to go.” Cardoso testified to an incident where Hernandez slapped, kicked, and hit her with a wooden board in front of their daughter. When she tried to get away, Hernandez broke through a window, dragged her by her hair, and then raped her.  She testified that he would “always do that [rape her] when he would hit” her because “[t]o him it was like to make me happy.” The Court observed that under the law of this circuit, credible testimony of spousal abuse, carried out in the presence of the child at issue, supports a finding that return of the child to the abuser poses a grave risk of at least psychological harm. Khan v. Fatima, 680 F.3d 781, 786 (7th Cir. 2012). Although AE’s verbal expression about the effect of witnessing Hernandez hit Cardoso was limited (he felt “sad”), the Court observed a significant change in demeanor when AE discussed Hernandez, the domestic violence, and the possibility of returning to Hernandez’s custody. The Seventh Circuit has rejected the notion that courts should consider whether the petitioner’s country of residence can adequately protect the child. Khan, 680 F.3d at 788. “If handing over custody of a child to an abusive parent creates a grave risk of harm to the child, in the sense that the parent may with some nonnegligible probability injure the child, the child should not be handed over, however severely the law of the parent’s country might punish such behavior.” Van De Sande v. Van De Sande, 431 F.3d 567, 571 (7th Cir. 2005). Even where the petitioning parent has not seriously physically injured the child in the past, a “propensity for violence,” coupled with “the grotesque disregard” for child welfare demonstrated by committing spousal battery in the presence of children, indicates a risk that the petitioning parent will one day “lose control and inflict actual physical injury” upon the child. Van De Sande, 431 F.3d at 570.

Gonzalez v Pena, 2016 WL 3654283 (D. Az, 2016) [Mexico] [Grave Risk of Harm] [Petition Denied]

In Gonzalez v Pena, 2016 WL 3654283 (D. Az, 2016) Gonzalez was a Mexican citizen residing in Mexico. Pena was a Mexican citizen residing in Scottsdale, Arizona. The parties were the parents of two Children: J.P., born in 2007, and A.P., born in 2005 in Scottsdale. In 2012 Gonzalez moved to Nayarit, Mexico with the Children. Pena continued to reside in Scottsdale and visited the Children in Mexico. There were no court orders dictating the parties' parenting time. On June 7, 2015, Gonzalez agreed that the Children could visit Pena in Scottsdale. The parties agreed that Pena would return the Children to Mexico by August 6, 2015.. Approximately one week before the Children were to be returned to Mexico, A.P. informed Pena that she had been sexually abused by Gonzalez's live-in boyfriend. As a result, Pena decided to not allow the Children to return to Mexico.  The district court found that Gonzalez established a prima facie case for return. Although Pena's retention was wrongful, the Court found he had met his burden of showing that returning the Children to Mexico presents a “grave risk” or would be an “intolerable situation” and denied the petition.  Sexual abuse most  constitutes a ‘grave risk’ of physical or psychological harm.” Ortiz v. Martinez, 789 F.3d 722, 728 (7th Cir. 2015). The evidence clearly and convincingly established that Gonzalez's live in boyfriend sexually abused A.P. at least once. Moreover, Gonzalez's stated that she did not believe any abuse could have occurred because she had the only key to the bedroom. At one point, Gonzalez stated that she believed only “touching” had occurred, “not sexual abuse.” And she stated that she kicked her boyfriend out of the house not because she believed any abuse had occurred, but because she wanted the “situation to clarify.” Notably, not once during her testimony did Gonzalez state that she would take any steps to protect the Children from abuse if they returned to Mexico. The evidence also demonstrated that the Children had already suffered psychologically from the abuse. A.P. has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, and J.P. had been experiencing anger issues with the incident. A.P. had experienced some depression, and experiences trouble sleeping and nightmares. The Court found separating the Children would significantly aggravate their emotional state. 

Martinez v Cahue, 2016 WL 3457617 (7th Cir, 2016) [Mexico] [Habitual Residence] [Rights of Custody] [Petition denied]

In Martinez v Cahue, 2016 WL 3457617 (7th Cir, 2016) the first seven years of A.M.'s life, he lived in Illinois with his mother, Jaded Mahelet Ruvalcaba Martinez. He was born in Chicago in 2006. A.M.'s father, Peter Valdez Cahue, lived nearby, although he and Martinez never married. They entered into a private arrangement, never formalized through a court order, for custody and visitation rights. In 2013, Martinez moved to Mexico and took A.M. with her. About a year later, Cahue persuaded Martinez to send A.M. to Illinois for a visit; he then refused to return A.M. to Mexico.

            The district court held an evidentiary hearing, after which it determined that there was sufficient evidence that A.M. had acclimatized to Mexico during the year he lived there with his mother. It also found, however, that Cahue and Martinez did not jointly intend that A.M. should move to Mexico in the first place. It said, Martinez took A.M. to Mexico without Cahue's permission or knowledge (presumably about the permanence of the move—Cahue admitted that he knew about the trip). Emphasizing the absence of shared parental intent, the district court held that Illinois had remained A.M.'s habitual residence during the year he spent in Mexico, and thus Martinez's petition had to be dismissed.

            The Seventh Circuit reversed. It concluded that the district court asked the wrong question, and thus came to the wrong answer. It found that at all relevant times, Martinez had sole custody of A.M. under Illinois law, while Cahue had no right of custody either under Illinois law or the Convention. That meant that only Martinez's intent mattered, and it was plain that Martinez wanted A.M.'s habitual residence transferred to Mexico. Cahue's retention of A.M. in Illinois was therefore wrongful and he had to be returned to Mexico.

            The Court found that Martinez's initial removal of A.M. to Mexico in July 2013 was not subject to any legal restrictions that might allow Cahue's intent to affect the analysis. Cahue never obtained rights of custody for Convention purposes under these statutes, nor was Martinez's right to relocate A.M. constrained by them. In the absence of a court order, Illinois law presumes that the mother of a child born out of wedlock has sole custody. See 720 ILCS 5/10–5(a)(3) (2013) Cahue did not obtain a custody order during the time that mattered. When Martinez moved to Mexico with A.M., she may have violated the terms of the couple's private custody agreement. But the move did not violate a right of custody for Convention purposes. Martinez's removal of A.M. to Mexico was therefore not wrongful. Nor did it violate Illinois law. Because only Martinez has rights of custody under the Convention, and Illinois law did not in any way restrict her right to move away from the country with her son, only her intent was of legal significance.

            The second key consideration in determining habitual residence is the extent to which the child has acclimatized to one or the other place. The district court found that by August 2014, A.M. had acclimatized to Mexico. While A.M. had spent most of his life in Illinois, that fact is not dispositive. (That would create the kind of formulaic, ratio-based test that appears nowhere in the Convention.) The Seventh Circuit found that by the end of his first year in Mexico, he displayed all of the indicia of habitual residence, including friends, extended family, success in school, and participating in community and religious activities.

    

          Based on Martinez's intent that he change habitual residence, the lack of any right on Cahue's part to veto her preference, and A.M.'s own successful acclimatization, the Court conclued  that Mexico was A.M.'s habitual residence at the time Cahue acted to retain him in the United States.   Because the district court found that A.M.'s habitual residence was Illinois, it had no reason to evaluate the wrongfulness of Cahue's 2014 retention of A.M., or any possible defenses that Cahue might have raised.

            Cahue admitted  that he retained A.M. in Illinois without Martinez's consent. In doing so, he violated her rights of custody under Mexican law. See Civil Code for the State of Aguascalientes, arts. 434, 437, 440–41; Garcia, 808 F.3d at 1164 (noting that the right called patria potestas is “a ‘right of custody’ under the Convention” that is conferred to both parents, and whose “central values” are “fairness and reciprocity”).  

            Because Cahue's retention of A.M. in July 2014 was wrongful, A.M. had to be returned to Martinez unless Cahue can show that either of the two defenses he presented applies: that A.M. is now so “settled in [his] new environment” that he should not be returned, see Convention art. 12, T.I.A.S. No. 11670, or that Martinez “subsequently acquiesced in the ... retention,” see id. art. 13(a). The  record did not support the applicability of the “settled-child” defense, and did not not support a finding that Martinez ever acquiesced in Cahue's actions.

Alcala v Hernandez, 2016 WL 3343251 (4th Cir.,2016)[Mexico] [Petition dismissed] [Now Settled]

     In Alcala v Hernandez, 2016 WL 3343251 (4th Cir.,2016) in June 2013, Appellee Claudia Garcia Hernandez (Mother) removed her two minor children from their home in Mexico and arrived in South Carolina in August 2013. In October 2014, the children’s biological father, Appellant Fernando Contreras Alcala (Father), petitioned for return of the children to Mexico. The district court found that Mother’s removal of the children was wrongful, but that the children were now settled in their new environment and declined to order the children returned. The Fourth Circuit affirmed.  It noted that Article 12 states that where appropriate proceedings are not commenced within one year of a child being wrongfully removed, a court shall nevertheless order return “unless it is demonstrated that the child is now settled in its new environment.” In a case of first impression in this Circuit the Court found that the reasoning of the Second Circuit in Lozano v. Alvarez, 697 F.3d 41, 56 (2d Cir. 2012), aff’d in part sub nom. Lozano v. Montoya Alvarez, 134 S. Ct. 1224 (2014) was consisted with its reasoning and agreed that for a child to be settled within the meaning of the Convention, the child must have significant connections demonstrating a secure, stable, and permanent life in his or her new environment. Insofar as relevant facts to be considered, it held that courts should consider any relevant circumstance that demonstrates security, stability, or permanence—or the lack thereof—in a child’s new environment. Such a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis . It observed that  the district court here looked to the factors articulated by the Second Circuit in Lozano: (1) the age of the child; (2) the stability of the child’s residence in the new environment; (3) whether the child attends school or day care consistently; (4) whether the child attends church [or participates in other community or extracurricular school activities] regularly; (5) the respondent’s employment and financial stability; (6) whether the child has friends and relatives in the new area; and (7) the immigration status of the child and the respondent. The district court correctly recognized that such factors are non-exhaustive, and in a particular case some of these considerations may not apply and additional considerations may be relevant. While it agreed that the use of such factors may be helpful in guiding factual development and analysis, their use should not obscure the ultimate purpose of the court’s inquiry, which is a holistic determination of whether a child has significant connections demonstrating a secure, stable, and permanent life in his or her new environment.

    The Fifth Circuit also observed that under the Convention Courts have discretion to order the return of the child at any time. However, the Convention provides no explicit guidance as to when a court should exercise such discretion. It noted that the discretion to order return is grounded in principles of equity and it was not persuaded that equitable considerations warranted ordering the Son’s return. 

Berezowsky v Rendon Ojeda, 2016 WL 3254054 (5th Cir.2016)[Mexico] [Re-return order]

  In Berezowsky v Rendon Ojeda, 2016 WL 3254054 (5th Cir.2016) Michelle Gomez Berezowsky filed a Hague Convention petition arguing that Rendon wrongfully removed PARB from his habitual residence (purportedly Mexico). The district court ruled in her favor and ordered PARB returned to Berezowsky. Rendon complied, and Berezowsky, with the district court’s permission, left for Mexico with PARB. Rendon appealed, asking that PARB be returned to him. In August 2014 the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment (Ojeda 1). It concluded, in relevant part, that “[f]or the reasons stated in this opinion we VACATE the district court’s order and REMAND with instructions to dismiss.” The accompanying mandate stated that “[i]t is ordered and adjudged that the judgment of the District Court is vacated, and the cause is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings in accordance with the opinion of this Court.” On remand, the district court succinctly “ORDERED THAT the [District] Court’s Order for the return of the child [to Berezowsky] ... is VACATED and this action is DISMISSED.” Rendon timely filed a Rule 59(e) motion to amend the judgment, asking the court to order Berezowsky to return PARB to him in light of the dismissal. The district court denied the motion, and Rendon again appealed. 

       The Fifth Circuit affirmed. It found no binding precedent addressing how a mandate “vacat[ing] ... and remand [ing] with instructions to dismiss” should be parsed.  It concluded that  Ojeda  neither required nor forbade a re-return order. The Court did not  decide in that case whether or not a re-return order was warranted. Because a lower court “is free to decide matters which are left open by the mandate,” the decision to issue or deny a re-return order was therefore the district court’s. The district court decided not to issue a re-return order.  It subsequent refusal to amend the judgment (which provided the basis of the present appeal) is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and amendment is appropriate if the controlling law has changed, if new evidence is available, or if the initial decision was manifestly erroneous as a matter of law or fact.  Rendon did not allege new evidence or a change in controlling law, and the district court’s decision was not legally or factually erroneous. The law of the case did not compel a re-return order, and the court reasonably could have concluded on these facts that the equities did not favor a re-return order. Citing these concerns, the Ninth Circuit recently refused to issue a re-return order after overturning a district court’s Hague Convention decision, in what appears to be the only federal appellate case addressing the propriety of such an order. In re A.L.C., 607 F. App’x 658, 663 (9th Cir. 2015). The Fifth Circuit affirmed. It held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to issue a re-return order. 

Cefaliello v Serpico, 2016 WL 3256972 (N.D. Ohio, 2016)[Italy] [Federal & State Judicial Remedies] [Motion to dismiss denied]

In Cefaliello v Serpico, 2016 WL 3256972 (N.D. Ohio, 2016) the district court denied the Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. The parties had a child in Italy who was born on January 26, 2012. In November 2013, the parties moved to  Ohio. Plaintiff did not obtain a green card and  was required to leave the country in May 2014. Defendant and the minor child did not return to Italy.  On February 25, 2016, the state court granted Defendant an uncontested divorce which allowed Plaintiff visitation rights with the minor child. On April 15, 2016, Plaintiff filed this Hague Convention action. The district court observed that ICARA provides that federal courts adjudicating Hague Convention petitions must accord full faith and credit only to the judgments of those state or federal courts that actually adjudicated a Hague Convention claim in accordance with the dictates of the Convention and ICARA: 42 U.S.C. § 11603(g); Holder v. Holder, 305 F.3d 854, 864-65 (9th Cir. 2002). No Hague Petition was adjudicated by the state court, nor was there any indication that the provisions of the Hague Convention were considered when Plaintiff’s custody rights were determined. As such, the state court divorce decree was not entitled to preclusive effect.

In re R.C.G.J., 2016 WL 3198285 (N.D. Florida, 2016) [Honduras] [Habitual Residence][Petition granted]

In re R.C.G.J., 2016 WL 3198285 (N.D. Florida, 2016) the Court found that the 5 year old child was born to parents who were living together in Hondouras and had the shared intent to remain there, which the mother changed. Two considerations made the case atypical. First, with the approval of both parents, the child lived most of his life in the United States and he was acclimated here. Second, both parents intended all along that the child will live with the mother, although the father has insisted on his right to control the child, but never wished to have separate physical custody. The actual expectation of the parents was that the child would  live with the mother in the United States at least until 2017 and probably through high-school graduation in 2029. The father acquiesced in the mother and child living in the United States.  The parents shared a settled mutual intent that the stay last indefinitely. Although the mother signed an agreement in 2013 designating the child’s habitual residence as Honduras and agreed in April 2015 to entry of an order confirming that provision, what the parties said about habitual residence was different from what they agreed to do about it. They agreed that the mother and child would move to the United States and remain until 2016—a date later extended to 2017—and the parties included a provision for extending the period of residence in the United States indefinitely. The parties contemplated that the child would remain in the mother’s physical custody and would stay in the United States for an extended period—probably through high school. There was no reason to believe the child would ever actually move back to Honduras. In sum, the child’s habitual residence, as of July 11, 2015, when he was retained in the United States, was the United States. 

Albani v Albani, 2016 WL 3074407 (S.D. Cal, 2016) [Singapore] [Fees and Expenses]

In Albani v Albani, 2016 WL 3074407 (S.D. Cal, 2016) after a 12 day bench trial, the Court granted the Petition for the return of the child  to Singapore, and then directed Respondent mother to pay $196,498.50 in attorney’s= fees.  It analyzed the award, utilizing the lodestar method, citing Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983)). It held it was not appropriate to award attorney’s= fees for petitioners five attorneys, and  only awarded fees for the work done by Amanda Harris, the person responsible for briefing and Richard Min, the lead attorney who argued the case. Ms. Harris billed 228.6 hours and Mr. Min billed 311.73 hours on matters pertaining to this case. The Court concluded that the hours were reasonable. Mr. Min billed his client at a rate of $300 per hour, and Ms. Harris billed at a rate of $450 per hour for the 2015 calendar year, and $455 per hour starting in 2016. The hourly rates were reasonable. Respondent argued that she had a good‑faith belief that the United States was I.A.=s habitual residence. The Court found that her testimony lacked credibility. It rejected her argument that any fee award should be reduced because of her financial condition. She was a trained physician and prior to these proceedings, she was employed in Singapore as a project manager, working part‑time and making $5,000 a month in Singapore dollars.

Hopkins v Webb, 2016 WL 2770553 (W.D. Wisconsin) [Northern Ireland] [Federal & State Judicial Remedies] [TRO] [Death of Respondent]

          In Hopkins v Webb, 2016 WL 2770553  (W.D. Wisconsin) Petitioner seeking  the return of C.H., the minor child of Mr. Hopkins and respondent, Jackie Lynn Webb initiated this case by filing an ex parte motion for entry of a temporary restraining order. After the court determined that an ex parte TRO was warranted. Ms. Webb and C.H. could not be located but counsel appeared for Ms. Webb. Counsel informed the court that Ms. Webb passed away very recently and that C.H. was  the subject of a temporary custody order of the Sumner County, Tennessee, court. Pursuant to the order, C.H. was in the temporary legal custody of the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (TDCS). Counsel for Ms. Webb indicated that a member of Ms. Webb’s family intended to seek custody of C.H. and intended to resist Mr. Hopkins’ attempts to return C.H. to Northern Ireland.  To preserve Mr. Hopkin’s right to a decision on the merits of his petition, and to ensure that C.H. was  available for return to his father’s custody, should that be the ultimate result of these proceedings, the court  issued a TRO to C.H.’s current custodian, TDCS, and transferred the case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, where C.H. was currently located. See 22 U.S.C. § 9003(b) (“Any person seeking to initiate judicial proceedings under the [Hague] Convention for the return of a child ... may do so by commencing a civil action ... in the place where the child is located at the time the petition is filed.”). 

Tann v Bennett, --- Fed. Appx. ----, 2016 WL 2753994 (2d Cir .,2016)[United Kingdom][Petition denied] [Age & Maturity]

In Tann v Bennett, --- Fed. Appx. ----, 2016 WL 2753994 (2d Cir .,2016) the Second Circuit, in a summary order, affirmed a judgment which denied the petition of Lisa Tann, a citizen of the United Kingdom who resided in Northern Ireland and was the mother of now 14–year–old J.D., dismissing her petition for J.D.’s repatriation and allowing J.D. to remain in the United States with respondents George Alan Bennett and Miranda Bennett, J.D.’s father and stepmother, pending a custody determination by New York State. It rejected Tann argument that the district court erred in relying on J.D.’s objection to returning to Northern Ireland in denying her petition. It observed that Article 13 of the Hague Convention “permits a court to refuse to order the return of [a wrongfully retained] child if it finds that the child objects to being returned and has attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of its views.” Blondin v. Dubois, 238 F.3d at 166. Whether a child is “old enough and mature enough” for his “views to be considered” is a question of fact, as is the determination that a child actually objects to returning to his country of habitual residece. It pointed out that it reviews de novo the district courts interpretation of the Hague Convention and its application to the facts it has found, and the courts underlying factual determination only for clear error. 
The Court found no clear error in the district court’s conclusion that J.D. had “attained an age and degree of maturity at which it [wa]s appropriate to take account of [his] views.” Hague Convention, art. 13. After observing then nearly thirteen-year old J.D.’s responses and demeanor during an in camera interview, the district court found the child “to be a very intelligent and decent young man,” and concluded that “J.D.’s desire to remain in New York should be respected” pending resolution of the state custody proceedings. In so ruling, the court implicitly found J.D. sufficiently mature for the exception to apply. “This finding, relying as it (in part) did on the Court’s personal observations of [J.D.], is of the sort peculiarly within the province of the trier of fact and is entitled to considerable deference.” Nothing in the transcript of J.D.’s in camera interview suggested that the court’s maturity finding was clearly erroneous. Because the Magistrate Judge was in the best position to gauge J.D.’s maturity level, it did not disturb his finding.
The Second Circuit rejected the argument that J.D. expressed only a “preference” to stay in the United States, as opposed to a specific objection to returning to Northern Ireland, the record shows otherwise. J.D. testified that (1) he did not always feel safe in Northern Ireland, (2) he “would really feel bad” if he were returned, and (3) he might hurt himself or others if he was forced to return. Nor did it find error in the district court’s refusal to consider that respondents’ wrongful retention of J.D. contributed to J.D.’s preference for living in the United States. Nothing in its precedent required such consideration. Rather, its precedent instructs, without qualification, that “a court may refuse repatriation solely on the basis of a considered objection to returning by a sufficiently mature child.” Blondin v. Dubois, 238 F.3d at 166.